Whether this is the right explanation or not, the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter. This doesn’t mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference.
It doesn't fit their world view anon.
Here's how their responce might go...
"Not interested. Also, WTH? The guy's name is "Paul" and he works for the NYT (and, I'll wager a university to boot). Not worth reading.
From Wiki... The term "epistemic closure" has been used in U.S. political debate to refer to the claim that political belief systems can be closed systems of deduction, unaffected by empirical evidence.[6] This use of the term was popularized by libertarian blogger and commentator Julian Sanchez in 2010 as an extreme form of confirmation bias.[6][7]
You should broaden your horizons Rose. What if FOX and Rush are wrong about my side of the chasm? What if we aren't narcissistic, self-interested elites whose policies are only cheap attempts to keep ourselves in control of government. What if the above applies more to your side of the chasm?
There is no arguing with that impeccable reasoning Rose. "I'm right, you're wrong and I'm not going to be caught dead reading one of those lefty ideologues from the NYT fish-wrap." (internal dialog..."That might muddle the clarity."
Rose, Republicans are going to have to address problems like inequality and climate change. The sooner they do, the better it will be for their chances. Some like Arnie and Chris Christie sometimes try, but boy do they hear it from their base when they do.
The greatest political challenge of the next 50 years will be not if the Dems can capture more of the white male vote that they have lost to ESPN, Rush and FOX, but to see how the Republican Party deals with their base which buries there head in the sand on the most critical issues of our day.
What's your take on this piece from Paul Krugman?
ReplyDeletehttp://nyti.ms/1wksdyi
Whether this is the right explanation or not, the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter. This doesn’t mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't fit their world view anon.
Here's how their responce might go...
"Not interested. Also, WTH? The guy's name is "Paul" and he works for the NYT (and, I'll wager a university to boot). Not worth reading.
Don't feed the troll, Jon.
ReplyDeleteWait, by definition I thought I was a troll here. I'm so confused.
ReplyDeleteLOL. No. You're not a troll. You're one of the good guys. You're wrong in your assumptions above, but, oh well.
ReplyDeleteWow, thanks Rose. Generous.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Animated GIF is being especially generous today too, wishing all of us a nice day. Maybe I should clck on his/her link? Nah.
Also, what was your take on that ___ Krugman link?
ReplyDeleteDidn't read it, Jon. Thus, no opinion.
DeleteI think "epistemic closure" applies here.
DeleteFrom Wiki...
The term "epistemic closure" has been used in U.S. political debate to refer to the claim that political belief systems can be closed systems of deduction, unaffected by empirical evidence.[6] This use of the term was popularized by libertarian blogger and commentator Julian Sanchez in 2010 as an extreme form of confirmation bias.[6][7]
You should broaden your horizons Rose. What if FOX and Rush are wrong about my side of the chasm? What if we aren't narcissistic, self-interested elites whose policies are only cheap attempts to keep ourselves in control of government. What if the above applies more to your side of the chasm?
Wrong again. Jon.
DeleteThere is no arguing with that impeccable reasoning Rose. "I'm right, you're wrong and I'm not going to be caught dead reading one of those lefty ideologues from the NYT fish-wrap." (internal dialog..."That might muddle the clarity."
DeleteRose, Republicans are going to have to address problems like inequality and climate change. The sooner they do, the better it will be for their chances. Some like Arnie and Chris Christie sometimes try, but boy do they hear it from their base when they do.
The greatest political challenge of the next 50 years will be not if the Dems can capture more of the white male vote that they have lost to ESPN, Rush and FOX, but to see how the Republican Party deals with their base which buries there head in the sand on the most critical issues of our day.
Apparently you don't follow your own advice.
Delete